Categories
Exam Questions Harvard

Harvard. History of Economic Theory. Final exam questions, Taussig, 1887-90

 

Examination questions spanning just over a half-century can be found in Frank Taussig’s personal scrapbook of cut-and-pasted semester examinations for his entire Harvard career. Until Schumpeter took over the core economic theory course from Taussig in 1935, Taussig’s course covering economic theory and its history was a part of every properly educated Harvard economist’s basic training. Today I begin with a systematic, regular transcription of Taussig’s examinations for this course that began as Political Economy 2, but that is best known by its later course number, Economics 11.

_______________________

Course Description and Enrollment
1886-87

Instructor

Course number, name, and content Hours per week Enrollment by class

Total enroll-ment

Prof. Taussig

*2. Economic Theory; its history and present stage;
—Lectures, preparation of papers, and discussion of selections from leading writers.

3

2 Graduates,
33 Seniors,
14 Juniors

49

Source:   Harvard University, Annual Reports of the President and Treasurer of Harvard College, 1886-87, p. 58.

 

1886-87.
POLITICAL ECONOMY 2.
[Mid-Year Examination. 1887.]

  1. It has been said that the Mercantile writers built up the first system of political economy; again, that a system is first found in the writings of the Physiocrats; and again, that Ricardo created political economy as a science. What should you say as to these statements?
  2. Say something as to the connection that may be traced between the personal history of Adam Smith and of Ricardo, and the characteristics of their writings.
  3. Sketch the history of the doctrines as to the productiveness of different kinds of labor from the time of the Mercantile writers to that of J. S. Mill.
  4. Comment on the following:—

“It remains a matter of some difficulty to discover what solid contribution Malthus has made to our knowledge, nor is it easy to ascertain precisely what practical precepts, not already familiar, he founded on his theoretic principles…. ‘Much,’ he thought, ‘remained to be done. The comparison between the increase of population and of food had not, perhaps, been stated with sufficient force and precision’ and ‘few inquiries had been made into the various modes by which the level’ between population and the means of subsistence ‘is effected.’ The first desideratum here mentioned — the want, namely, of an accurate statement of the relation between the population and the supply of food — Malthus doubtless supposed to have been supplied by the celebrated proposition that ‘population increases in a geometrical, food in an arithmetical, ratio.’ This proposition has been conclusively shown to be erroneous, there being no such difference of law between the increase of man and of the organic beings who form his food. When this formula is not used, other somewhat nebulous expressions are sometimes employed, as, for example, that ‘population has a tendency to increase faster than food’ a sentence in which both are treated as if they were spontaneous growths…. It must always have been perfectly well known that population will probably (though not necessarily) increase with every augmentation of the supply of subsistence, and may, in some instances, inconveniently press upon or even for a certain time exceed the number properly corresponding to that supply. Nor could it have ever been doubted that war, disease, poverty — the last two often the consequences of vice — are causes which keep population down. Again, it is surely plain enough that the apprehension by individuals of the evils of poverty, or a sense of duty to their possible offspring, may retard the increase of population, and has in all civilized communities operated to a certain extent in that way. It is only when such obvious truths are clothed in the technical terminology of ‘positive’ and ‘preventive’ checks that they appear novel and profound: and yet they appear to contain the whole message of Malthus to mankind.”
Whom do you judge to be the writer of this passage?

  1. State carefully Cairnes’s theory of value, and show wherein it differs from Ricardo’s exposition of that subject.
  2. Explain the conclusions which George draws as to wages from an analysis of the simplest stage of society, and those which Ricardo draws as to values from a similar analysis. State whether the reasoning in the two cases differs and if so, wherein; and give an opinion as to the soundness of the conclusions reached.
  3. State carefully the wage-fund doctrine as expounded by Cairnes, and show wherein his exposition is an advance on the previous treatment of the subject.
  4. In a collection of examination questions, the following was asked:—

“Cairnes argues that we cannot apply the law of supply and demand to labor, because the supply of labor is produced by biological forces and not as commodities are produced. — What is the fallacy of this argument?”

Comment on the question, and answer it; and refer briefly to the history of the line of argument that draws an analogy between the value of labor and of commodities.

_______________________

1886-87
POLITICAL ECONOMY 2.
[Final Examination, 1887.]

  1. Comment, separately or in a connected essay, on the following extracts:—

(a) “The first of these theories is known as the wage-fund theory of the books on Political Economy. It represents the rate of wages as depending on the amount of capital which employers think proper to disburse as wages. The wages rate was regarded as the dividend, found by dividing the wages-fund by the number of labourers. But though this division doubtless takes place, there is nothing in the theory to determine either the whole amount which is to be divided, or the proportional share which any particular labourer may obtain. Nobody can possibly suppose that workmen in different branches of production, or in different ranks in the same branch, receive the same wages. Nor can anybody imagine that the capitalist distributes his capital simply because it is capital, irrespective of the produce which he expects from the labour bought.”
— W. S. Jevons.

(b) “Ricardo held that profits and wages are the leavings of each other. Later economists have generally rejected this doctrine; but even those of them who maintain that wages are paid out of capital, fall back on arguments which imply its truth. For instance, Cairnes, who earnestly maintained that capital is divided into wages, rent, material, and wage-fund, argued that trades-unions could not increase the rate of wages because, if they did so, they would reduce profits below the rate which would make investment worth while. On his own doctrine, increased wages could not trench on profits…. We shall see further on that wages and profits are not the leavings of each other, because they are not parts of the same whole.”

(c) “If we assume that upon a cultivated island are tools and carts and animals for draught, and other forms of capital, adequate for a thousand laborers, the production will vary within a very wide range according to the industrial quality of the laborers using that capital. If we suppose them to be East Indians, we shall have a certain annual product; if we suppose Russian peasants to be substituted for East Indians, we shall have twice or three times that product; if we suppose Englishmen to be substituted for Russians, we shall have the product again multiplied two or three fold. By the wage-fund theory, the rate of wages would remain the same through these changes, inasmuch as the aggregate capital of the island would remain the same through these changes and the number of laborers in the market would be unchanged, the only difference being found in the substitution of more efficient for less efficient laborers. According to the view here advanced, on the contrary, the amount to be paid in wages should and would rise with the increased production due to the higher industrial quality of the laboring population.”

(d) “The capital of the employer is by no means the real source of the wages even of the workmen employed by him. It is only the immediate reservoir through which wages are paid out, until the purchasers of the commodities produced by that labor make good the advance and thereby encourage the undertaker to purchase additional labor.”—W. Roscher.

Whom do you judge to be the writers of the extracts (b) and (c)?

  1. State carefully Walker’s theory of business profits. Give an opinion as to its value (1) in explaining differences between the returns of different managers, and (2) in eliminating such returns, like rent, from the problem of distribution.
  2. Compare Carey and Bastiat, and say something as to the manner and extent of their influence on the course of economic speculation.
  3. Explain wherein the attitude of Wagner to economic study differs from that of Mill and Cairnes.
  4. “Mr. Cairnes asks, ‘how far should religious and moral considerations be admitted as coming within the province of political economy?’ His answer is that ‘they are to be taken account of precisely in so far as they are found to affect the conduct of men in the pursuit of wealth;’ and one needs only to allude to the influence of mediaeval religion both on the forms and the distribution of the wealth of the community, the changes in both with the change in religion after the Reformation, in proof of the impotence of the a priori method in relation to this class of agencies. Yet a few pages after recognizing their title to investigation, Mr. Cairnes argues that induction, though indispensable in physical, is needless in economic science, on the ground that the economist starts with a knowledge of ultimate causes’ and ‘is already at the outset of his enterprise in the position which the physicist only attains after ages of laborious research.’ The followers of the deductian [sic] method are in fact on the horns of a dilemma. They must either follow Mr. Lowe’s narrow path, and reason strictly from the assumption that men are actuated by no motive save the desire of pecuniary gain, or they must contend that they have an intuitive knowledge of all the moral, religious, political, and other motives influencing human conduct, and of the changes they undergo in different countries and periods.”
    Was Cairnes inconsistent in the manner here stated? Does his reasoning lead to the alleged dilemma?
  5. Should you agree with the following:—

       “If economic phenomena were the results of a single force or combination of forces, standing alone, then only would the assumption hold good that there is an identity of effects on the appearance of the same causes. But economic facts are so closely connected with the whole of life, the element of personal freedom comes in so constantly, that a causal connection like that of a law of nature cannot be shown. This is at bottom the sound point in the criticisms of Ricardo’s keen logic. Ricardo often begins with facts, carefully and nicely observed in real life, and makes them the first premises of his reasoning. Then he uses a method of reasoning which is common in philosophy, but inadmissible in political economy. By logical sequence of thought he leads the reader, who can see no flaw in the chain of conclusions, to a result which, notwithstanding the solidity of the premises and the steadfast reasoning, is yet by no means unquestionable. For in the end we are not concerned with the elaboration of a truthful train of thought, but with a truth of real life; hence the test of truth lies in the connection of cause and effect that exists in real life; and as to that, with its manifold and varied possibilities, no human insight can make the true combinations in advance by abstract reasoning. There may be an artistic truth, which yet, when compared with reality, is not a truth. Even if one sees no inconsistency with the facts of experience up to the very last step in the reasoning, yet that reasoning gets its final stamp of truth only from experience. Our thoughts on the facts of the world are often true only so long as we shape them according to those facts that we know; a new experience comes in to better this approximate truth.”—Knies, Die Politische Oekonomie vom Historischen Standpunkte.

_______________________

Course Description and Enrollment
1887-88

Instructor

Course number, name, and content Hours per week Enrollment by class

Total enroll-ment

Prof. Taussig

*2. History of Economic Theory.
— Distribution. — The Scope and Method of Political Economy. — Socialism. —Lectures, preparation of theses, and discussion of selections from leading writers.

3

4 Graduates,
14 Seniors,
8 Juniors,
1 Sophomore,
2 Others

29

Source:   Harvard University, Annual Reports of the President and Treasurer of Harvard College, 1887-88, p. 62.

 

1887-88.
POLITICAL ECONOMY 2.
[Mid-Year Examination. 1888.]

  1. Compare the treatment of the theory of money by Boisguillebert, Law, and Hume.
  2. What was Adam Smith’s doctrine as to rent, and wherein does it differ from that of the Physiocrats, and from that of Ricardo?
  3. Make a brief comparison between the general characteristics of the economic writings of Adam Smith and of J. S. Mill.
  4. Explain how Malthus illustrated and applied his general principles in his discussion of the movement of population in (a) Sweden and Norway, (b) Switzerland, (c) France during the Revolutionary wars. [Take one of these three.)
  5. “Mr. Malthus thinks that a low money price of corn would not be favourable to the lower classes of society, because the real exchangeable value of labour, that is, its power of commanding the necessaries, conveniencies, and luxuries of life, would not be augmented, but diminished, by a low money price. Some of his observations on this subject are certainly of great weight, but he does not sufficiently allow for the effect of a better distribution of the national capital on the situation of the lower classes. It would be beneficial to them, because the same capital would employ more hands; besides, the greater profits would lead to more accumulation; and thus a stimulus would be given to population by really high wages, which could not fail for a long time to ameliorate the condition of the laboring classes.”— Ricardo, Essay on the Influence of a Low Price of Corn.
    Explain (a) whether this states fairly Malthus’s opinion as to the effect of cheap food; (b) what Ricardo meant by “a better distribution of the national capital”; (c) what light the concluding sentence throws on Ricardo’s view of the effect on wages and profits of cheap food.
  6. “The notion that any portion of the wealth of the country should be ‘determined’ to the payment of wages seems to shock Mr. Longe’s sense of economic propriety; which is strange, seeing that his own doctrine — that it is ‘the demand for commodities which determines the quantity of wealth spent in the payment of wages’ — plainly involves this consequence. He puts the case of a capitalist who, taking advantage of the necessities of his workmen, effects a reduction of wages and succeeds in withdrawing so much, say £1000, from the Wages-Fund; and asks how is the sum thus withdrawn to be restored to the fund? On Mr. Longe’s principles the answer is simple,—‘by being spent in commodities’; for it may be assumed that the sum so withdrawn will, in any case, not be hoarded. * * * The answer, therefore, to the case put by Mr. Longe is easy on his own principles; and I am disposed to flatter myself that the reader who has gone with me in the foregoing discussion will not have much difficulty in replying to it on my own.”— Cairnes, Leading Principles.
    What is the answer on Cairnes’s principles?
  7. Would the explanation which the Wages-Fund theory gives of the causes regulating the rate of wages apply to a society in which a system of profit-sharing had been universally adopted?
  8. Wherein does Ricardo’s treatment of the manner in which profits affect value differ from Cairnes’s treatment of the same subject?

_______________________

1887-88
POLITICAL ECONOMY 2.
[Final Examination. 1888.]

  1. “Cairnes, who earnestly maintained that capital is divided into wages, raw material, and fixed capital, argued that trades-unions could not increase wages in the several trades, because, if they did so, they would reduce profits below the rate which would make investment worth while. On his own doctrine, increased wages could not trench on profits. He should have argued that wages, if increased by a trades-union, could only be increased at the expense of raw material and fixed capital, which would be far more difficult than to increase them at the expense of profits. Indeed, if the trades-union movement did not coincide with a new distribution of capital into its three parts (a new distribution which would produce a rise in wages), the trades-union could not possibly force an advance at the expense of raw materials or fixed capital.” — W. G. Sumner, Collected Essays.
    Can you reconcile Cairnes’s reasoning on trades-unions with his doctrine as to the wages fund?
  2. “The railroads of the United States receive annually two hundred and ten millions of dollars for transporting passengers. Those receipts came in day by day, yet the railroad company habitually pays its employees at the close of the week or at the close of the month. Here we have a very large class of services where the employer receives the price of his product before he pays for the labor concerned in its production. The railroads of the United States also receive annually for freights five hundred and fifty millions. The greater portion of this amount is collected before the track hands and the station hands have received the remuneration for their share of the service. . . . To descend to the other end of the scale of dignity, hotel keepers and, in less degrees, boarding-house keepers collect their bills before they pay their cooks, chambermaids, and scullions. Nearly all receipts of theatre, opera, and concert companies are obtained day by day, although their staffs and troupes are borne on monthly or weekly pay-rolls.” — F. A. Walker, in the Journal of Economics, April, 1888.
    Are these facts inconsistent with the proposition that wages are paid out of capital?
  3. What should you say to the doctrine that the real source of wages is in the incomes of the consumers of the articles made by the laborers?
  4. It has been said that “Mr. Walker’s theory is, in reality, not a theory of manager’s earnings at all, but a theory of difference in manager’s earnings.” Do you think this is a sound criticism?
  5. Explain what was Bastiat’s doctrine as to value; point out wherein it was like or unlike Carey’s doctrine on the same subject; and state briefly Cairnes’s criticism on Bastiat.
  6. “There are two kinds of sociological inquiry. In the first kind, the question proposed is, what effect will follow from a given cause, a certain general condition of social circumstances being presupposed. As, for example, what would be the effect of abolishing or repealing corn laws in the present conditions of society or civilization in any European country, or under any other given supposition with regard to the circumstances of society in general; without reference to the changes which might take place, or which may be already in progress, in those circumstances. But there is also a second inquiry, namely, what are the laws which determine those general circumstances themselves. In this last the question is, not what will be the effect of a given cause in a certain state of society, but what are the causes which produce, and the phenomena which characterize, states of society generally.” — Mill’s Logic.
    What reasons are there for saying that different methods should be applied to these two kinds of inquiry? and what are the differences in method?
  7. Can the legislation of Germany on workmen’s insurance be said to be socialistic in a sense in which (a) the Christian socialist movement in England, and (b) the regulation or ownership by the state, are not socialistic?
  8. Suppose production coöperation were universally adopted; wherein would the organization of society differ from that which socialism proposes?

_______________________

Course Description and Enrollment
1888-89

Instructor

Course number, name, and content Hours per week Enrollment by class

Total enrollment

Prof. Taussig

*2. History of Economic Theory. Examination of selections from leading writers.—Lectures and discussion: one extended thesis from each student.

3

13 Seniors,
9 Juniors,
2 Sophomores

24

Source:   Harvard University, Annual Reports of the President and Treasurer of Harvard College, 1888-89, p. 72.

 

1888-89.
POLITICAL ECONOMY 2.
[Mid-Year Examination. 1889.]

  1. Point out wherein the teachings of the mercantile writers on population and on the balance of trade were connected with the political and economic history of their time.
  2. Under what conditions did Adam Smith believe that wages could long remain high? What reasoning led him to this conclusion? Do you think the reasoning sound?
  3. Wherein did Adam Smith’s doctrines as to foreign trade differ from those of Hume and of the Physiocrats?
  4. Ricardo’s chapter on value has been criticized on the following grounds: —

(1) Ricardo asserts, but in no way proves, that value depends on quantity of labor.
(2) He does not state whether he means labor expended on the production of goods, or labor needed for their reproduction.
(3) His principle holds good only of goods of which the production can be increased indefinitely, and as to which competition is free.
(4) The principle is at once modified by the statement that the general rate of profits affects values.

Discuss briefly each objection.

  1. Malthus laid it down that (1) marriages and deaths bear a constant proportion in an old country; (2) with a rise in the standard of living, marriages become less in proportion to population; (3) births, like marriages, bear a constant proportion to deaths, in an old country.
    What led Malthus to these conclusions? Does experience bear him out?
  2. By what mode of proof did Malthus show that the wars of the French Revolution had not diminished the population of France? Point out wherein his discussion of this subject is characteristic of the Essay on Population.
  3. Malthus, Ricardo, J. S. Mill, Cairnes, — note briefly how they are related in the history of economic theory.
  4. What would be the movement of wages and prices in case of a general improvement in industrial processes?
  5. What does Cairnes conclude as to the results which Trade Unions can permanently bring about (1) in England; (2) in the United States?

_______________________

 1888-89.
POLITICAL ECONOMY 2.
[Final Examination. 1889.]

  1. On what grounds can you reason that the stock of consumable commodities is likely to be sufficient, or more than sufficient, to last, at the present rate of consumption, till a new stock can be produced? What bearing has the answer on the wages-fund controversy?
  2. Discuss President F. A Walker’s explanation of business profits in its bearing on the general theory of distribution.
  3. By what reasoning does Cairnes reach the conclusion that, in the present state of society, “the rich will be growing richer, and the poor, at least relatively, poorer.”
  4. Could Cairnes, consistently with his conclusions as to coöperation, oppose measures such as were urged by Lasalle?
  5. Point out wherein Sidgwick’s exposition of the causes determining the rate of interest differs from Mill’s.
  6. What was the attitude toward laissez-faire of Adam Smith? of Ricardo? of Cairnes?
  7. What reasons are there why the term “socialist” should or should not be applied to (1) the Christian socialists; (2) advocates of German legislation on workmen’s insurance; (3) followers of Mr. Henry George.
  8. Point out wherein Marx’s discussion of wages is similar to that of Rodbertus.
  9. “From the history of the double standard we reach Gresham’s law, that where two currencies exist side by side the baser will drive the good out; from the prosperity of England we can reason to the principle of free trade, at least for industrially developed nations.” — R. M. Smith. What would Cairnes say to this mode of investigation for the specific questions mentioned?
  10. Comment on the following extracts, separately or in connection with each other: —

“The value of most of the theorems of the classic economists is a good deal attenuated by the habitual assumption . . . that there is a definite universal rate of profits and wages in a community; this last postulate implying (1) that the capital embarked in any undertaking will pass at once to another in which larger profits are for the time to be made; (2) that a laborer, whatever his ties and feelings, family, habit, or other engagements, will transfer himself immediately to any place where, or employment in which, larger wages are to be earned; (3) that both capitalists and laborers have a perfect knowledge of the condition and prospects of industry throughout the country, both in their own and in other occupations.” — J. K. Ingram.
“In proof of the equalization of profits, Mr. Cairnes urges that capital deserts or avoids occupations which are known to be comparatively unremunerative; while if large profits are known to be realized in any investment there is a flow of capital toward it. Hence it is inferred that capital finds its level like water. But surely the movement of capital from losing to highly profitable trades proves only a great inequality of profits.” — Cliffe Leslie.

_______________________

Course Description and Enrollment
1889-90

Instructors

Course number, name, and content Hours per week Enrollment by class

Total enrollment

Prof. Taussig and Mr. Brooks
[see next posting for information about Brooks]

*2. History of Economic Theory.
First half-year: Lectures on the History of Economic Theory.—Discussion of selections from Adam Smith and Ricardo.—Topics in distribution, with special reference to wages and managers’ returns.—Second half-year: Modern Socialism in France, Germany, and England.—An extended thesis from each student.

3

7 Seniors,
12 Juniors,
1 Sophomore,
4 Others

24

Source:   Harvard University, Annual Reports of the President and Treasurer of Harvard College, 1889-90, p. 80.

_______________________

1889-90
POLITICAL ECONOMY 2.
[Mid-Year Examination. 1890.]

  1. Sidgwick supposes that, in a country where the ratio of auxiliary to remuneratory capital is 5 to 1, 120 millions are saved and added to the existing capital, and asks, “in what proportion are we to suppose this to be divided?” Answer the question.
  2. On the same supposition Cairnes’s answer is expected to be that the whole of the 120 millions would be added to the wages fund. “But then, unless the laborers became personally more efficient in consequence — which Cairnes does not assume — there would be no increase in the annual produce, and therefore the whole increase in the wages fund would be taken out of the profits within the year after the rise. Now, though I do not consider saving to depend so entirely on the prospect of profit as Mill and other economists, still I cannot doubt that a reduction in profits by an amount equivalent to the whole amount saved would very soon bring accumulation to a stop; hence the conclusion from Cairnes’s assumptions would seem to be that under no circumstances can capital increase to any considerable extent unless the number of laborers increases also.”
    What would Cairnes say to this?
  3. Explain what is Sidgwick’s conclusion as to the effect of profits on accumulation; and point out wherein his treatment of this topic differs from Cairnes’s and from Ricardo’s.
  4. In what sense does George use the term “wages”? Ricardo? Mill? Cairnes?
  5. Explain wherein Sidgwick’s general theory of distribution differs from Walker’s.
  6. Compare the treatment of rent by the Physiocratic writers and by Adam Smith.
  7. What was Adam Smith’s doctrine as to labor as a means of value? What was Ricardo’s criticism on that doctrine?
  8. What did Adam Smith say to the argument that taxes on the necessaries of life raise the price of labor, and therefore give good ground for import duties on the commodities produced at home by the high-priced labor? What would Ricardo have said to the same argument?
  9. How does Ricardo show that the application of labor and capital to worse soil brings a decline of profits not only in agriculture, but in all industries?

 Source:  Harvard University Archives. Examination papers in economics 1882-1935 of Professor F. W. Taussig (HUC 7882). Scrapbook.

 

Categories
Chicago Economists Fields

Chicago. Ph.D. Field exam reports by Viner, Wright, and Millis. 1923

 

 

 

Today’s posting provides an observation from the paper-flow in reporting the results of Ph.D. field exams at the department of political economy of the University of Chicago in the 1920’s. Fields examined were capitalistic organization, government administration, trusts, economic history, and labor.

Of the five Ph.D. students mentioned in the following Ph.D. field exam reports from August 1923 only two were awarded Ph.D.’s by the University of Chicago economics department:

Elinor Evangeline Pancoast [the link takes you to a few blog posts from a currently inactive blog by a woman who has examined the Pancoast papers archived at Goucher College] received her Ph.D. in Autumn,1927 with the dissertation “The photo-engravers’ union”. She went on to teach at Goucher College in Baltimore. She lived to be 100!

Lewis Carlyle Sorrell received his Ph.D. in Autumn, 1928 with the dissertation “Transportation and traffic in industry” and went on to Professor of Transportation and Traffic in the School of Business at the University of Chicago.

 

_______________________

Jacob Viner’s handwritten report

The Quadrangle Club
Chicago

Dear Mr. Millis,

I am reporting to you on the Ph.D. papers, on the understanding that in the Dean’s absence you have assumed the task of supervision

Fife. Capitalistic Organization. Passed.
Miss Pancoast. Government Administration. Passed.
Lynn. Government Administration. Failed.

            I think there should be no hesitation in accepting Mr. Fife’s and Miss Pancoast’s papers. They are both good papers, showing thorough preparation, a good grasp of the problems discussed, and considerable independence of judgment.

Lynn’s paper is poor. On several of the questions he is absolutely at sea, and on none of them does he display any measure of ability or knowledge above the middling grade.

J. Viner

Fife’s and Miss Pancoast’s papers have been sent on to the others.

_______________________

C. W. Wright’s handwritten report

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
The School of Commerce and Administration

Memorandum to Miss McKugs from C.W. Wright, Aug 14 192[3]

I have to report as follows on the examinations taken for the Ph.D.

L. C. Sorrell. Trusts. Passed A-
Elinor Pancoast. Economic History [Passed] A-
Harry Fife. [Economic History] [Passed] B
A. J. Lynn [Economic History] Not passed D

C.W. Wright

_______________________

H. A. Millis first typed memo

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
Department of Political Economy

August 20, 1923

Memorandum re examinations for the doctorate.

I have read the Labor papers written two weeks ago by candidates for the doctorate. Mr. H. A. Fife’s paper grades A or A-, that by Mr. C. F. Lay slightly under C. Fife and Lay are therefore passed. I do not regard Mr. A. J. Lynn’s paper as passable. I shall have other members of the department read it, and then make final report.

Signed: H. A. Millis

_______________________

H. A. Millis second typed memo

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
Department of Political Economy

Memorandum re Exams for the Doctorate.

I have graded Labor papers by Fife and Lay, A- and C-. Hitchcock, Viner and I have all three found Lynn’s paper in Labor below the passing point. Viner and I grade his paper in Govt Adm. below passing while Merriam grades it D. Viner and I grade Miss Pancoast in this same field B or A- and Merriam says it is at least a “good paper”

Signed: H. A. Millis

 

Source: University of Chicago Archives. Economics Department, Records & Addenda. Box 35, Folder 14.

 

Categories
Chicago Suggested Reading Syllabus

Chicago. Readings for Marschak’s course on statistical applications to economics, 1946

 

 

Another jewel in the Norman M. Kaplan papers at the University of Chicago Archives are his notes from Jacob Marschak’s course “Applications of Statistics to Economics”. In this posting I have only transcribed the reading lists for the course, there is of course much more course content in Kaplan’s notes. 

A Biographical Memoir was written by Kenneth Arrow and published by the National Academy of Sciences.

___________________________

Course Announcement

  1. Applications of Statistics to Economics. Statistical testing of economic theories. Numerical estimation of demand and cost functions and other functions occurring in the theory of the firm and household, the theory of markets and the theory of national income. Estimation of economic models. Statistical prediction under conditions of changing economic structure and policy. Prereq: Econ 211, 301 or equiv. Aut: TuTh 3-5; Marschak.

 

Source:   University of Chicago. Announcements (Vol. XLVI, Number 4: May 15, 1946). The College and the Divisions, Sessions of 1946-1947, p. 222.

___________________________

First Course Reading List

ECONOMICS 314. Autumn 1946.

Recommended Readings    (First Installment)

(The material is arranged in the order of the lectures during which it is mentioned for the first time)

I

M. Ezekiel. Methods of correlation analysis. 1941. [Useful for first orientation and for practice. Does not give adequate account of (a) fundamentals of statistical logic; (b) peculiarities of statistical economics.]

T.C. Schelling. Raise profits by raising wages? Econometrica 1946, pp. 227-234. [Good formulation of a policy problem, inserting plausible numerical values of economic parameters.]

Henry Schultz. Theory and measurement of demand. 1938 [See in particular (a) the historical parts concerning Gregory King, Jerome Marshall, Letfeldt, H. L. Moore; (b) shifts of demand and supply curves treated on pp. 72-83.]

A.C. Pigou. Economics of Welfare, Appendix II, §1 (and footnote on Moore).

Elmer Working. What do statistical demand curves show? Quarterly Journal of Economics. 1927.

Ragnar Frisch. Pitfalls in the Statistical Analysis of Demand and Supply Curves. 1933.

Ragnar Frisch and B. D. Mudgett. Statistical correlation and the theory of cluster types, Journal of American Stat. Ass. 1931. [read pp. 375-381 only.]

L. Klein. Pitfalls in the statistical determination of the investment schedule. Ecometrica 1943, pp. 240-258.

J. R. Hicks. Mr. Keynes and the Classics, Econometrica. 1937.

J. Tinbergen. Statistical Testing of Business Cycle Theories, Vol. II: Business fluctuations in U.S.A. 1919-1932. League of Nations. Geneva 1937.

Paul Douglas. The Theory of Wages. 1934.

J. Marschak and W. Andrews. Random simultaneous equations and the theory of production. Econometrica 1944. (Read also the articles of Reder and of Bronfenbrenner treated in appendix 2 of the article).

___________________________

Second Course Reading List

ECONOMICS 314     Fall 1946.

BIBLIOGRAPHY, Second Installment

Production and Cost Functions.

J. Tintner. A note on the derivation of production functions from farm records. Econometrica, 1944.

Joel Dean. The Relation of Cost to Output for a Leather Belt Shop. National Bureau of Economic Research, 1941.

Joel Dean. Statistical Cost Functions of a Hosiery Mill. Journal of Business, 1941. The University of Chicago. 1941.

Joel Dean. Articles on Cost Functions in the Journal of Business, 1936, 1941, 1942.

U.S. Steel Corporation. Pamphlets and Charts submitted to the Temporary National Economic Committee; esp. Volume I Pamphlets No. 5 and No. 7, 1940.

Ragnar Frisch. The Principle of Substitution. An example of its application in the chocolate industry. Nordisk Tidskrift for Tenisk Økonomi. September 1935.

R.G.D. Allen. Mathematical Analysis for Economists. 1930. Look up the index to locate numerous references and exercises to the problem of cost and production functions.

Family Budgets and Demand Functions.

National Resources Planning Board. Consumer Expenditures 1935-1936. Washington 1939.

Allen, R. G. D., and Bowley. Family Expenditure, A Study of its variation. 1935.

J. Marschak. Personal and Collective Budget Functions. Review of Economic Statistics. 1939.

J. Marschak. Money Illusion and Demand Analysis. Review of Economic Statistics. 1943.

H. Staehle. Relative Prices and Postwar Mariets for Annual Food Products. Quarterly. Journal of Economics. February 1945.

 

[Handwritten note on back: “Lange’s Price Flexibility & Haavelmo’s Probability Approach available for sale at Cowles Comm.?”]

___________________________

Marschak’s questionnaire for students taking course

By filling out this questionnaire, you will enable the instructor to adjust the course Economics 314 to the prevailing level of the students.

U. of C. Courses
(Dept. and No.)
Other Courses Other Training
or Experience
Economics, theoretical
Economics, descriptive
Mathematics
Theory of Statistics

Further relevant information on previous training:

 

Name three problems to exemplify the application of Statistics to Economics

 

 

Source: University of Chicago Archives. Norman M. Kaplan Papers, Box 3, Folder 3.

Image Source:  Portrait of Jacob Marschak in the Biographical Memoir “Jacob Marschak, 1898-1977” written for the National Academy of Sciences by Kenneth Arrow (1991).

 

Categories
Economists Harvard

“Books that the perfect Marxian must know.” W.E.B. Dubois asks Abram Harris, 1933

 

W.E.B. Dubois’ papers are digitized and online at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Dubois received his Ph.D. at Harvard in economic history in 1895 and in 1892-94 he studied in Berlin. In 1933 apparently Dubois returned to Marxian economics and asked Abram Lincoln Harris, a leading scholar of Marxian economics in the United States, for some reading suggestions. Economics in the Rear-view Mirror has posted earlier a proposed for an undergraduate course description submitted to the department of economics at the University of Chicago by Harris in 1961 that did not amuse George Stigler. I have read somewhere that Frank Knight liked Harris’ work, which is consistent with Harris having published the articles linked below in the Journal of Political Economy.

Anyhow, there is more interesting material in Dubois’ papers that are easily accessible and well-organized at the above link.

____________________

Carbon copy
Letter from W.E.B. Dubois to Abram Harris

January 6, 1933.

Mr. Abram Harris,
Howard University,
Washington, D.C.

My dear Mr. Harris:

From bits which I gather from publishers and friends, I take it that you are still alive. Ben Stolberg told me that you had lost your father. I am very sorry indeed. Also, I have heard of your scholarship which is about one-fifth as large as it should be but I presume it is to be regarded as a great concession on the part of scientists.

You have perhaps seen my tentative program for a re-examination of the Negro problem which I published in January and I shall publish a revised one in February. I have been re-reading Marx recently as everyone must these days. I have the three volumes of “Capital” and the small Vanguard book by Max Eastman [I am guessing Dubois is referring to: Marx and Lenin: The Science of Revolution. New York: Albert and Charles Boni, 1927.]. I write to ask if you will send me a list of four or five best books which the perfect Marxian must know. Please rush these.

I am coming down Sunday, January 22, on my way to Atlanta. If the spare room is vacant, I should be glad to stop.

Very sincerely yours,

WEBD/DW

 

Source: Du Bois, W. E. B. (William Edward Burghardt), 1868-1963. Letter from W. E. B. Du Bois to Abram Harris, January 6, 1933. W. E. B. Du Bois Papers (MS 312). Special Collections and University Archives, University of Massachusetts Amherst Libraries.

____________________

Letter from Abram Harris to W.E.B. Dubois

 

HOWARD UNIVERSITY
Washington, D.C.

January Seventh
1933

Department of Economics

Dear Dr. Du Bois:

We will be very glad to have you stay with us when you pass through the city on your way to Atlanta. Let me know how long you plan to be here, so that I can arrange a little gathering. I read your program for re-examining the Negro problem and I want to talk with you about it.

A good Marxian ought to know the intellectual and social background of Marx’s works. This I should think is best gotten from any of the standard works on economic doctrine and the history of political thought. I would suggest your brousing [sic] through Gide and Rist, History of Economic Doctrines; Halévy, The Growth of Philosophic Radicalism; [Part I The Youth of Bentham; ] and, Dunning, Political Thought from Rousseau to Spencer. The following by Marx and Engels should be read: Marx, The Gotha Program; Wage Labor and Capital, and Value, Price and Profit (in The Essentials of Marx, Algernon Lee, Vanguard Press); The Critique of Political Economy (if Capital has not been read); and Engels Feuerbach: The Roots of Socialist Philosophy; Socialism from Utopia to Science, and The Land Marks of Scientific Socialism. After you finish with these I suggest that you look into Marx’s Revolution and Counter-Revolution; and, The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte.

I have just completed what I consider a new interpretation of Marx. [“Economic Evolution: Dialectical and Darwinian” Journal of Political Economy (Feb. 1934, pp. 34-79)] If I had an extra copy of the manuscript I would send it along to you. At any rate the reprint [“Types of Institutionalism“, Journal of Political Economy (December, 1932), pp. 721-749] which I am enclosing will give you some idea of what is contained in this new interpretation.

Sincerely,
[signed]
Abram Harris

Dr. W.E.B. Du Bois
69 Fifth Avenue
New York, N.Y.

 

Source: Harris, Abram Lincoln, 1899-1963. Letter from Abram Harris to W. E. B. Du Bois, January 7, 1933. W. E. B. Du Bois Papers (MS 312). Special Collections and University Archives, University of Massachusetts Amherst Libraries.

____________________

 

Copy of Telegram from W.E.B. Dubois to Abram Harris

January 20, 1933

Mr. Abram Harris,
Howard University,
Washington, D.C.

Shall arrive Sunday afternoon about four or five Stop Must leave Monday morning before day Stop No breakfast Stop Please find a safe garage nearby for my car

W. E. B. Du Bois.

 

Source: Du Bois, W. E. B. (William Edward Burghardt), 1868-1963. Telegram from W. E. B. Du Bois to Abram Harris, January 20, 1933. W. E. B. Du Bois Papers (MS 312). Special Collections and University Archives, University of Massachusetts Amherst Libraries.

____________________

Carbon copy
Letter from W.E.B. Dubois to Abram Harris

Rockefeller Hall
Spelman College, Atlanta, Georgia.

February 2, 1933.

Mr. Abram Harris,
Department of Economics,
Howard University,
Washington, D.C.

My dear Mr. Harris:

I have just got hold of my secretary so that I can really answer letters. I want to thank you and Mrs. Harris so much for your kind hospitality. I think I made a good getaway from your house, except that I forgot to set the alarm clock for seven and leave it for you. I hope you did not oversleep.

I spent Sunday night in Durham, Tuesday night at Spartenburg, and arrived here Wednesday.

I have read and re-read with a great deal of interest your article on Marx, Feblem [sic, dictated[?], clearly “Veblen” intended] and Mitchell. Send me anything else you have on the subject.

Very sincerely yours,

WEBD/DW

 

Source: Du Bois, W. E. B. (William Edward Burghardt), 1868-1963. Letter from W. E. B. Du Bois to Abram Harris, February 2, 1933. W. E. B. Du Bois Papers (MS 312). Special Collections and University Archives, University of Massachusetts Amherst Libraries.

Image Source: Abram Lincoln Harris (ca 1935). Guggenheim fellow. https://www.gf.org/fellows/all-fellows/abram-lincoln-harris/

Categories
Amherst Columbia Economists Germany Wisconsin

Columbia. Economics Ph.D. Alumnus, James Walter Crook, 1898

 

This posting is another in the irregular series, “Get to know an economics Ph.D. alum”. I stumbled upon Professor James Walter Crook’s photo while working on the previous autobiographical posting for John Maurice Clark who was a student of his at Amherst and later a colleague. Crook spent a year in Berlin as a student and overlapped with W.E.B. Du Bois there and to whom we see below he had been introduced.

____________________

James Walter Crook (1859-1933)
Columbia Ph.D., 1898

James Walter Crook was born Dec. 21, 1859 in Ontario, Canada. His family emigrated to the U.S. in 1868. According to the 1880 U. S. Census he was the Census Enumerator for the 1st Ward of the City of Manistee in Manistee county, Michigan where he (21 years of age) lived with his mother and six younger brothers.  While a few younger brothers were  registered employed in a saw mill, James Walter Crook was listed as attending school. He married Eva Maria Lewis Sept 16, 1881 in Manistee. His occupation was “school teacher” according to the record of marriage.

Crook received his B.A. from Oberlin College in 1891 where he stayed on as a history instructor the following year. This was followed by a year of graduate work at the University of Wisconsin where he was listed as a Fellow in Economics, 1892-93.

He studied at the University of Berlin in 1893-94 where he happened to be introduced to W. E. B. Du Bois, himself an American student in Berlin. In Dubois’ papers there is a letter Crook wrote (January 21, 1905): “I suppose you do not remember me, but I recall with pleasure my meeting you in Berlin, Germany introduced by our mutual friend Knowlton, now of Fargo, N. Dakota.” In particular Crook was looking for advice regarding a sociological survey he wished to conduct among the ca. 200 African-Americans living in Amherst (population about 3,000 total).

After Germany Crook went on to do graduate work at Columbia University in 1894-95. The next year he was hired to teach Political Economy at Amherst where he worked through retirement.  Crook was awarded a Ph.D. from Columbia in 1898, publishing his dissertation as German Wage Theories: A History of Their Development. Vol. IX, No. 2 of Studies in History, Economics and Public Law. New York: Columbia University, 1898.

According to the U.S. Census reports he and his wife Eva lived at  21 Main Street in Amherst for at least the four censuses 1900-1930.

James Walter Crook, died in Springfield, MA 1933.

Source: From faculty pages in the Amherst College Yearbook, Olio, 1905, page 24. Also the Dubois papers at the University of Massachusetts and U.S. Census reports.

________________________

PROFESSORS OF POLITICAL ECONOMY
Amherst College (1877-1910)

1877

Anson Daniel Morse, LL.D. 1878
1892 John Bates Clark, Ph.D.

1895

1892

Charles Augustus Tuttle, Ph.D., Associate Political Economy and International Law 1893
1895 James Walter Crook, Ph.D., Assistant

1899

1899

James Walter Crook, Ph.D., Associate 1907
1907 James Walter Crook, Ph.D.

1908

Glover Dunn Hancock, Ph.D., Assistant 1910
1910 John Maurice Clark, Ph.D., Associate

 

Source:   General Catalogue of Amherst College including the Officers of Government and Instruction, the Alumni and Honorary Graduates, 1821-1910. Amherst, Mass., p. 9.

Image Source: From faculty pages in the Amherst College Yearbook, Olio, 1905, page 24.

 

 

 

Categories
Amherst Chicago Columbia Economists

Columbia. John Maurice Clark. Autobiographical notes, 1949

 

The following recollections of John Maurice Clark of his earliest contacts with economic problems is found in a folder of his papers containing notes about his father, John Bates Clark. The hand-written notes are fairly clear until we come to a clear addition on the final page. Abbreviations are used there and the handwriting is not always clear. Still the pages together provide a few nice stories and short lists of J.M. Clark’s teachers and students.

______________________

June 8, 1949

J.M.C.’s recollections of his earliest contacts with economic problems.

I think my earliest contact with an economic problem came on learning that the carpenter who sometimes came to do odd jobs for us at 23 Round Hill got $2.00 a day. I had a special interest in that carpenter. He was a tall man, with a full, dark beard; and it had been my imprudent interest in his operation with the kitchen double-windows (putting on? taking off?) that led me to lean out of a hammock and over the low rail of our second-story porch, to watch him (I was between two and three at the time). Mechanical consequences—I descended rapidly, landing on my head, but apparently suffering no injury except biting my tongue. Subjective consequences – maybe it pounded a little caution into me at an early age; but the present point is that it fixed that carpenter in my memory as “the man who picked me up.” It was some time later I learned that he got $2.00 a day.

I don’t remember whether I took the initiative and asked, or not. The cost of things was often discussed in our house, and my mother often talked of the difficulty of making both ends meet. I knew my father’s salary, though I can’t be sure now whether it was $3,500 or less. Anyhow, it was maybe eight or ten times the carpenter’s pay; and I began wondering how he made both ends meet, and remarked to my father that $2.00 a day wasn’t much to live on. He answered that it was pretty good pay for that kind of work. So I learned there were two ways of looking at a daily stipend—as income to live on and as the price of the service you gave your employer. Or perhaps simply the standpoints of the recipient and the payer. But especially I learned there were people who had to adjust their ideas of what they could live on, to a fraction of the income we found skimpy for the things we thought of as necessary. In short, I had a lesson in classes and their multiple standards to ponder over; without reaching any very enlightening conclusions.

I don’t think I connected this with our friends the Willistons (of the family connected with Williston seminary in Easthampton) who lived in the big house above us and from whom we rented ours. They were evidently much richer than we. They had gone to Europe (and been shipwrecked on the way, and had to transfer at sea to a lumber-schooner, which threw its deckload of lumber overboard to enable it to take on the people from the helpless steamship. — but that’s another story.)

To return to the carpenter. I suppose today he’d get perhaps $16, more?, and a Smith College salary, for a full professor, might be $7,000 or $8,000. The discrepancy has shrunk to maybe 2/5—certainly less than half—of what it was then. That puzzling discrepancy was my first lesson in economics—the first I remember.

There was another lesson—if you could call it that—the summer we spent a while at the Stanley House (now gone) in Southwest Harbor, on Mt. Desert. The rich people went to Bar Harbor. At Southwest, there was Mr. Brierly who had a yacht. We took our outings in a rowboat, sometimes with the help of a spritsail. One time we were going up Somes Sound, and were passed by one of the biggest ocean-going steam yachts—the “Sultana”. It was a very impressive sight, in those narrow waters, and looked about as big as the “Queen Mary” would to me now. I don’t remember anybody doing any moralizing; but if they did, the impression it left was that we, in our fashion, were doing the same kind of thing they were.

My first contact with economic literature (not counting the subversive economics of Robin Hood, which we boys knew by heart, in the Howard Pyle version) was at 23 Round Hill, so I must have been less than nine. I found a little book on my father’s shelves that had pictures in it – queer pictures done in pen and ink, which puzzled me. There was a boy not much bigger than I was, in queer little knee-britches, acting as a teacher to a class of grown men (including I think a Professor Laughlin, under whom I later taught at the University of Chicago.) And there were classical females being maltreated by brutal men, and other queer things. I was curious enough to read some of the text, to find out about the pictures. It was “Coin’s Financial School,” the famous free-silver tract.

I read enough to become a convinced free-silverite. And then I had the shock of discovering that my beloved and respected father was on the wrong side of that question. I decided there must be more to it than I’d gotten out of the queer picture-book. I suppose that was my first lesson in the need of preserving an open mind and holding economic ideas subject to possible reconsideration. Davenport and Veblen gave me more extensive lessons, fifteen or twenty years later, only this second time it was my father’s ideas I had to rethink, after reluctantly admitting that these opposing ideas represented something real, that needed to be reckoned with. One had to do something about it, though the something didn’t mean substituting Veblen for my father. It was a more difficult and discriminating adjustment that was called for.

To return to my boyhood. It may have been about this time that I learned something about mechanical techniques, when my father took me to see the Springfield Arsenal. They had a museum, with broadswords that had been used in battle—one was so nicked up that its edge had disappeared in a continuous series of surprisingly deep nicks—but the mechanical process that impressed me was a pattern-lathe, rough-shaping the stocks of Krags. On one side was a metal model of the finished stock revolving, with a wheel revolving against it. On the other side was the wooden blank revolving, and a wheel like the one on the model, and linked to it so as to copy its movements, and armed with knives. So the machine could make complicated shapes following any model you put into it, and do it faster and more accurately that a hand worker.

Incidentally (and as a digression) that was our first military rifle with smokeless powder, more powerful than black; our first regular military magazine rifle of the modern kind with a bolt action and a box magazine. The regulars were just getting them. The militia still had the black-powder 45-70 Springfields at the time of the Spanish War, and a Massachusetts regiment had to be ordered off the firing-line at El Caney because their smoke made too good a target. Teddy Roosevelt had pull enough to get Krag carbines for his Rough Riders plus the privilege of using their own Winchesters if individuals preferred, and, if they had the 30-40-220, which took the Krag cartridge.

But my regular education in economic theory began at the age of 9 or 10, in our first year at Amherst, when we lived on Amity Street, opposite Sunset Ave. My father had in mind James Mill’s training of his son, John Stuart Mill, and he copied the techniques of explaining something during a walk, but he didn’t follow James Mill’s example by making me submit a written report for criticism and revision. All he did was to explain about diminishing utility and marginal utility—using the illustration of the oranges. And he was satisfied that I understood it, and concluded that the simple fundamentals of economics could be taught to secondary school or “grammar-school” students. Later, my friend and former graduate student, Leverett Lyon, pithily remarked that I probably understood it better then than I ever had since. Maybe he was right. I know when I met Professor Fetter, the year the Ec. Ass. met in Princeton, he told me I didn’t understand the theory, because I had said (in print, I think) that there were some dangers about the concept of “psychic income.” I didn’t say it was wrong, but I did think it was likely to be misleading to use a term that was associated with accountants’ arithmetic. So I did probably understand the theory “better” at the age of 9 or 10. Twenty ears later, it didn’t look so simple. This was long before I disagreed with Fetter about basing-point pricing and the rightness of the uniform FOB mill price, as the price “true” competition would bring about.

______________________

J.M.C. later history.

Amherst, C in Ec tho 85 on exam, & written work not credited. (cf French A from Wilkins, C from [William Stuart] Symington (father of present (1951) W. Stuart Symington, head of nat security Resources Board). Symie sized my attitude up as that of a gentleman & gave me a gentleman’s mark)ache Crook said he “didn’t get hold” of me. He was correct.

 

Columbia: Giddings, A. S. Johnson, H.L. Moore, Seligman, Seager, Hawkins [?], Chaddock, Agger, Jacobstein. indoctrinated: J. B. C. orthodoxy modified by overhead costs (catalogued as “dynamics”) Dynamics (defined as) everything statics leaves out. & much induction. Take “Essentials” on slow dictation.

Veblen: slow infiltration of its logical & progre[?] rel. to the abstractions of J.B.C.: reverse normalizing might make[?] an arguable claim to equal legitimacy.

1912 ed. of Control of Trusts

“Contribution to theory of competive price” [QJE, August 1914] forerunner of “mon-comp”, largely empirical basis.

Germs of social & inst. ec. Rich-poor, Freedom as val in ec.[??] B. M. Anderson cf. Cooley

Revs of Hobson?, Pigou, Davenport Economics of Enterprise [Political Science Quarterly, Vol 29, no. 2]

 

To Chi. 1915 Changing basis of economic responsibility [JPE, March 1916] on moving to Chi. open declar[ation] of non-Laughlinism: backfire to an Atlantic article of Laughlin’s.

Modern Psych.

1917-18. War-ec. (“basis of war-time collectivism.”)

Students: Garver oral. Slichter, Lyon, Innis, Martin [?], Goodrich, Copeland, O’Grady [John O’Grady ?]

Ayres, Knight on faculty.

Ov. C. [Studies in the Economics of Overhead Costs]

Social Control [of Business]

 

Columbia. Students, Friedman, Ginzberg, Salera, Kuznets’ oral

 

Source: Columbia University Archives. John M. Clark Collection. History of Economic Thought. Box 37, Folder “J. B. Clark, 1847-1938”.

Image Source: John Maurcie Clark. University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-0171.  Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Categories
Chicago Columbia Economists Harvard

Columbia. James Waterhouse Angell’s 1943 report to his Harvard Class of 1918

 

Today we have autobiographical scrap written by the Columbia University professor of international economics, James Waterhouse Angell,  a quarter of a century after being awarded his A.B. from Harvard in 1918. He notes that in the year 1923/24 he “acquired a charming wife, a Ph.D. degree, a hungry offspring, and a new job”. The previous posting provides transcriptions of Columbia University records concerning his initial appointment that also mention his “charming wife”. The dates of three European trips are noteworthy as are his brief remarks declaring himself a nondogmatic social and political liberal. I have added a link to the Pennsylvania report on bootleg mining that Angell refers to.

__________________________

JAMES WATERHOUSE ANGELL

Home address: 4926 Goodridge Ave., New York, N.Y.

Office address: Columbia University, New York, N.Y.

Present address: 4421 Hawthorne St., N.W., Washington, D.C.

Born: May 20, 1898, Chicago, Ill. Parents: James Rowland Angell, Marion Isabel Watrous.

Prepared at: University High School, Chicago, Ill.

Years in College: 1914-1918. Degrees: A.B. magna cum laude, 1918; A.M., 1921; Ph.D., 1924.

Married: Jane Norton Grew, Oct. 19, 1923, Wellesley, Mass. Children: James Grew, July 18, 1924; Edward Dexter, April 21, 1928.

Occupation: Professor of Economics, Columbia University, at present chief economic adviser, Office of Civilian Supply, War Production Board.

Military or naval record: Enlisted private Nov. 5, 1918; detailed to Field Artillery Central Officers’ Training School, Camp Zachary Taylor, Ky.; discharged Jan. 29, 1919, and commissioned 2d lieutenant Field Artillery Officers’ Reserve Corps.

Offices held: Vice-chairman, Pennsylvania Anthracite Coal Industry Commission, 1937; vice-president, American Economic Association, 1940.

Member of: American Economic Association; Council on Foreign Relations; Royal Economic Society; American Academy of Arts and Sciences; Century Association (New York); Harvard Club of Boston; Authors’ Club (London).

Publications: “Theory of International Prices,” 1926; “Recovery of Germany” 1929; “Financial Foreign Policy of the United States,” 1933; “Behavior of Money,” 1936; “Investment and Business Cycles,” 1941.

ANGELL does not pretend that the following is a literary essay:

“This is obviously the occasion for an imperishable literary essay, in which the blushing author combines poking fun at himself and his times with some remote approach to a recognizable picture of what he has really done with twenty-five years, the whole nicely larded with a few well-chosen and inspiring sentiments.

“I contain no such essay, and shall not pretend to. After emerging from under the hostile hooves of Field Artillery mules in 1919, I took graduate work in economics at Chicago and Harvard and taught at both places. In one rather hectic period of twelve months I acquired a charming wife, a Ph.D. degree, a hungry offspring, and a new job. Thereafter the tempo slowed down a bit. The job was at Columbia University, where I have been ever since except when on leave, and most of my subsequent activities have been of the standard sorts associated with those who profess at institutions of learning. I have written some books and articles, all on economic questions, took a crack at trying to find an answer to the bootleg mining problem in Pennsylvania (we thought we had the answer, but the Legislature defeated our bill by two votes), and spent parts of three years in Europe. One of these trips was in 1922-1923, in the worst of the post-war inflation and collapse in continental Europe. Another one was in 1928-1929, at the height of the boom, and the third in 1938, uncomfortably close to the outbreak of the present war. In retrospect, it was a little like watching gigantic breakers build up and destroy themselves on rocks.

“Since November, 1941, I have been in Washington with the War Production Board and the antecedent O.P.M. I am now chief economic adviser in the Office of Civilian Supply. I violate no official confidence in admitting that civilian supply, as seen by the recipients, ain’t what she used to be. We don’t propose to put anyone in the hospital for lack of enough food or a roof, but the anatomical and spiritual paunches are on their way out—or off. Objections may be addressed to Berlin and Tokyo.

“We have two boys, both of whom are very fine citizens, if I do say so as shouldn’t. One is finishing up at Admiral Farragut Academy, and hopes to go thence into the Navy. The younger one has just started at Exeter, with an ultimate eye on medicine and surgery.

“I cannot lay claim to genuine hobbies, in any consuming sense, but there are many things I like and like to do as circumstances permit. I enjoy mountain climbing (I have the scalp of one major Alp, but only one), squash, swimming, small-boat sailing (in which ignorance runs pleasure a close second), drinking almost any good Burgundy, and listening to almost any allegedly humorous story. I also enjoy trying, unsuccessfully, to identify more than five of the common eastern American birds.

“My social and political views are liberal, if that term means anything, but not, I think, dogmatic. The rising pressures of the last ten or fifteen years in this country have made it impossible for us ever to return to the institutions, practices, and attitudes of, say, the middle 1920’s. The emergency of war is teaching us how to plan our economic and social operations on a national scale, for the general good and benefit yet without harmful effects on individual freedom, independence, and initiative. When this war is won and the pieces picked up, I look forward to an unprecedented era in this country, both internally and in our relations with other peoples. If we use and keep our heads, we shall reach undreamed-of levels of individual welfare, cultural and spiritual development, and general happiness.”

 

Source:   Harvard Class of 1918, Twenty-fifth Anniversary Report. Cambridge: 1943, pp. 24-26.

Image Source: Ibid.

Categories
Columbia Economists Harvard Michigan Salaries

Columbia. Appointment of James Waterhouse Angell, 1924

 

The head of the Columbia University economics department, Edwin R. A. Seligman, invested considerable effort in recruiting James Waterhouse Angell in 1924. The items below come from central administration files. There are also several letters back-and-forth between Seligman and Angell in Seligman’s papers (saved for a later posting). Clearly Angell was a red-hot prospect with “a very charming little woman” spouse.

____________________

Columbia University
in the city of New York
Faculty of Political Science

March 20, 1924.

Dean F. J. E. Woodbridge,
University Hall.

My dear Dean Woodbridge:

Following up the recommendations in my budget letter for the new Professorship in the Department of Economics, I beg to state that after much investigation and consideration the Department of Economics has come to the unanimous conclusion to recommend Dr. James Waterhouse Angell Jr. [sic, “ Jr.” is incorrect], of Harvard University, the son of President Angell of Yale University and the grandson of President Angell of the University of Michigan. Dr. Angell is a younger man, but in our opinion an abler man, than any of the others that we have considered. He is at present instructor in Harvard University, and has been offered a promotion there for next year and he has also been offered a full Professorship at the University of Michigan. On account of his comparative youth, however, we preferred to offer him, in a tentative way, only a Lectureship, at a salary of three thousand dollars, although with the distinct understanding that if he made good, he would be recommended for promotion, first in salary, and then in rank. Dr. Angell will make a distinct sacrifice—and as compared with the Michigan offer a very considerable sacrifice—in accepting our offer; but he would be very glad to accept such an offer from us because of the opportunities for research and advanced work.

Dr. Angell has had an interesting career. He has an A. B. from Harvard in 1918 and has since then received the degree of both A.M. and Ph.D. He was also Kirkland Fellow at Harvard and the incumbent of the Sheldon Traveling Fellowship at Harvard. He was assistant at the University of Chicago, 1918-1920, tutor in the Division of History, Government, and Economics at Harvard, 1921-22, and is at present instructor in Economics. Professors Young and Ripley agree in saying that Dr. Angell is the ablest student in Economics that they have ever had, and Professor Taussig and his other colleagues have an equally high opinion of him. Dr. Angell has written several articles of a very high order of merit in the Journal of Political Economy [“The Illinois Blue Sky Law”] and the Quarterly Journal of Economics [“International Trade under Inconvertible Paper”], and his Doctor’s thesis is entitled “The Theory of International Prices and its History”.

If Dr. Angell comes to us he proposes to devote his energies to the general subjects of International Trade and International Investments, which are precisely the topics mentioned in my budget letter as constituting the most serious gap now existing in the University. It is the judgment of the Department of Economics that there is no one in the country better calculated to do good work in this subject than Dr. Angell and I may add that the recommendation of the Department has already been unanimously approved by the Committee on Instruction of the Faculty of Political Science. Dr. Angell has a very pleasing personality and has recently married, as we are informed, a very charming wife.

I should like to urge favorable action on our recommendation, not only because we shall thus be filling a long-felt gap in the Department, but because, with the impending absence next year of Professor Seager, an additional instructor in the Department of Economics becomes imperatively necessary.

Now that Professor Chaddock is to go over to the Department of Sociology, — a transfer that is being made with the full assent of the Department of Economics, it will become absolutely impossible for Professor Mitchell, Professor Simkhovitch, and myself to attend next year to the administrative work of the Department and the needs of our graduate students. At no time in the past few decades have we felt the pressure of work as we are feeling it now and unless this addition is made to our forces, either our scientific work or the carrying on of our academic duties will be seriously jeopardized.

I venture, therefore, to hope that the recommendation of the Department will be approved. If the approval can take place speedily there will yet be time to insert the announcement of the new courses in the forthcoming bulletin, which will be of considerable advantage in attracting students who are interested in that particular field of international economic relations.

Respectfully,
[signed]
Edwin R. A. Seligman

__________________________

 

Columbia University
in the City of New York
Faculty of Political Science

April 16, 1924

President Nicholas Murray Butler,
Columbia University.

My dear Mr. President:

I have received word from Dean Woodbridge of the approval of the Angell proposition by the committee on education and the committee of finance of the Trustees. I want to thank you personally for your kindness in this entire matter and I want to express the confident expectation that young Angell will make good. His wife is a very charming little woman and took tea with us the other day.

With kind regards,

Faithfully yours,
[signed]
Edwin R. A. Seligman

__________________________

May 14, 1924

Professor E.R.A. Seligman

Department of Economics

Dear Professor Seligman:

I beg to advise you that at the meeting of the trustees held on May 5, the Budget for the Department of Economics for the next academic year was amended by inserting provision for a Lecturer in Economics at $3,000, and that Dr. James Waterhouse Angell, Jr. [sic, “ Jr.” is incorrect] was appointed to this post for the academic year 1924-25.

Very truly yours,

Frank D. Fackenthal

Source: Columbia University Archives. Central Files. Box 338; Folder 16, “Seligman, Edwin Robert Anderson”

Image Source: College Photo of James Waterhouse Angell in Harvard Class of 1918, Twenty-fifth Anniversary Report. Cambridge: 1943.

Categories
Harvard Suggested Reading Syllabus

Harvard. Industrial organization. Reading List, Kaysen and Peck, 1955

 

I have had the enormous good fortune of having excellent mentors during the course of my own economics education. The first was Professor Merton J. Peck who taught the double credit course “Early Concentration Economics” during the fall semester of my freshman year at Yale (1969-70). He liked a paper I wrote enough to show it to his colleague James Tobin who thought it was good enough to be written by a graduate student, or at least so I was told. With such a boost to my self-esteem, how could I not have continued in economics?

Mr. Peck (at Yale professors are addressed without the honorific “Professor”) offered me a job to be his bursary boy, a 10 hour a week student assistantship, with a variety of tasks spanning photocopying articles and chapters to editing his rough drafts (what humility, allowing a sophomore/junior at Yale to improve his writing!) When I complained to Mr. Peck once that there was no course in the History of Economics at Yale at that time, he told me to give “Willy Fellner” a call. That led to my second Yale mentor and the beginning of my education in the history of economics (a two semester tutorial reading economic classics). There were two major projects that Mr. Peck was working on during my years working for him: on industrial/technological policy in Japan for a Brookings book Asia’s New Giant and Economic Aspects of Television Regulation (with Roger Noll and John McGowan). 

Incidentally, in Robert Litan’s book (Trillion Dollar Economists, p. 103) I discovered to my delight that my mentor had spotted the talent in the young Frank Fisher and forwarded Fisher’s undergraduate paper to his colleague Carl Kaysen. 

As I was looking at my collection of syllabi from Harvard this evening, I spotted the course below co-taught by Carl Kaysen and Merton J. Peck. This syllabus is my first tribute to the memory of my mentor Joe Peck. I have appended his official Yale obituary. He is also of interest for my project on graduate education, having received a Harvard Ph.D. (1954).

_______________________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics
Spring Term 1955

Economics 161
Professor Kaysen and Dr. Peck

 

  1. Markets of Large Numbers (2 Feb. – 28 Feb.)

General introduction
Agriculture
Crude oil
Women’s clothing

R. Schickele, Agricultural Policy, Ch. 9-11, 13-17.
J.K. Galbraith, Basic Factors in Farm Price Policy (mimeo.)
K. Brandt, Farm Price Supports, Rigid or Flexible?
N. Ely, “The Conservation of Oil,” Ch. 11 in Readings in the Social Control of Industry.
E.V. Rostow, A National Policy for the Oil Industry, Part II.
“Adam Smith on 7th Avenue,” Fortune, Jan. 1949.

 

  1. The Regulated Industries (2 March – 30 March)

Electric Power
Transportation

Twentieth Century Fund: Electric Power and Government Policy, Ch. I-IV, X
M.L. Fair and E.W. Williams, Jr., Economics of Transportation, Ch. 18-23, 25, 30, 32.

  1. Economic Mobilization (11 April – 18 April)

D.H. Wallace and L.V. Chandler, Economic Mobilization and Stabilization, Ch. 1-5, 23-26.

 

  1. Nationalization and Planning (20 April – 27 April)

J.E. Meade, Planning and the Price Mechanism.
R.W. Lewis, British Planning and Nationalization, Ch. 1-3.
H.A. Clegg and F.E. Chester, The Future of Nationalization, Ch. 1, 3.

 

Reading Period

A.A. Berle, 20th Century Capitalist Revolution.

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003. Box 6, Folder “Economics, 1955-1956 (2 of 2)”.

_______________________________

In memoriam: Merton Joseph Peck

YaleNews, March 6, 2013

Merton Joseph Peck, the Thomas DeWitt Cuyler Professor Emeritus of Economics, died March 1, at age 87. He resided in Florida and had been ailing for quite some time, according to his family.

Peck was a specialist in industrial organization, and wrote on a variety of topics including the aluminum industry, transportation, the defense industries, and cable and television. He also wrote about the transition to a market economy in the Soviet Union, as well as technological change.

He served in the U.S. Defense Department under Robert McNamara 1961–1963 as director of systems analysis, and he was designated by Time Magazine as one of the “Pentagon Whiz Kids” in 1962. Peck returned to Washington in 1968 to serve on Lyndon Johnson’s Council of Economic Advisors.

At Yale he served as department chair in various years throughout the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, setting a record for number of years in that post. He also served as director of graduate studies, director of undergraduate studies, and acting dean of the Yale School of Management. He was a fellow of Pierson College at Yale.

Peck was born in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1925. Much of his very early youth was spent in Germany and Strasbourg in Alsace France. His father, Kenneth Peck, was head of European production for American Rake and Hoe. Both his parents died before he was 12, and he was subsequently raised by his aunts and grandmother in various small towns in Ohio. During World War II, Peck served in the Army Signal Corp and participated in the occupation of Japan. After leaving the army, he attended Oberlin College and graduated in 1949. He received his Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University in 1954 under the tutelage of Edward Mason.

Peck taught at Michigan (1955-1956) and Harvard (1956-1962) before coming to Yale, where he served on the faculty 1963–2002. He was also associated with the Rand Corporation and Brookings Institution.

He is survived by his children Richard, Katherine, Sarah, and David; and four grandchildren. His wife of 55 years, Mary Bosworth Peck, predeceased him in 2004.

Source:  YaleNews, March 6, 2013.

Image Source:  ditto.

Categories
Economists Gender M.I.T. Northwestern

M.I.T. Complaint about ill-treatment of woman in job interview, 1982

 

With the current discussion of economist men acting badly with respect to their women colleagues and students in mind, I have transcribed the following letter by the long-time head of the M.I.T. economics department to complain about the positively unprofessional treatment of a woman graduate student interviewed by the Northwestern economics department. E. Cary Brown’s letter is a fine example of what senior male colleagues can do to support their women students. Perhaps someone knows how the letter was received at Northwestern.

Brown’s MIT obituary has been appended to this posting.

____________________

Chair to Chair Complaint
E. Cary Brown to Dale Mortensen

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Department of Economics
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139

January 9, 1982

Professor Dale T. Mortensen
Department of Economics
Northwestern University
2750 Ridge Avenue
Evanston, IL 60201

Dear Professor Mortensen:

It is no pleasure to report to you that one of our graduate students was extremely upset by the interview given her by the Northwestern delegation at the recent American Economic Association meetings, and so are we.

She reports that there were six people in the room, three of whom were lying on the bed for the whole time of the interview; she was introduced to no one; she was sat down in a low chair with the sun shining in her face; she was questioned in a desultory way with what seemed to her to be an elaborate lack of interest in anything she had to say. Naturally she suspects that she was part of a pro forma affirmative action charade, and the evidence makes it difficult to deny.

We are all aware that job interviews are an extraordinarily tense time for graduate students, even when conducted with courtesy and consideration. My colleagues join me in hoping that the reported experience was a major deviation from Northwestern policy.

Sincerely yours,

[signed]

E. Cary Brown
Head

Source: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Archives. Department of Economics. Records, 1947—, Box 3, Folder “N”.

____________________

E. Cary Brown, fiscal policy expert, dies at 91

June 27, 2007

E. Cary Brown, a leading expert on fiscal policy and the economics of taxation and a member of the MIT economics faculty for more than 60 years, passed away on June 8. He was 91.

As a professor of economics at MIT, Brown taught a wide range of graduate and undergraduate courses on tax policy design, statistical methods for economics and the economics of fiscal policy.

Brown was born on April 14, 1916, in Bakersfield, Calif. He received the B.A. degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1937 and pursued graduate work in economics at Berkeley and Harvard. His graduate studies were interrupted by World War II. Brown served as an economist at the War Production Board in 1940-41 and as an economist at the Division of Tax Research at the U.S. Treasury Department between 1942 and 1947. He received his Ph.D. in economics from Harvard in 1948.

Brown joined the MIT faculty in 1947 and was promoted to full professor in 1958. He was a Guggenheim Fellow, a Ford Foundation Faculty Fellow and a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He served as department head for Economics for 18 years, presiding over a period of departmental expansion and a time when MIT achieved recognition as one of the world’s leading economics departments. He retired from the MIT faculty in 1986 and served as an emeritus professor until his death.

Brown was widely acclaimed for his seminal research on the design of depreciation allowances, the income tax provisions that permit corporations and other investors who purchase long-lived assets to claim tax deductions as these assets decay. In a classic 1948 study, “Business Income Taxation and Investment Incentives,” Brown outlined a fundamental set of relationships between the investment credit a firm receives when it makes an investment, the present discounted value of subsequent depreciation allowances and the effective tax burden on new investments. His insights have remained a touchstone for virtually all subsequent research on this issue and still feature in the public policy debate on the choice between income and consumption taxation.

Brown was also an expert on broader issues of fiscal policy. His 1956 paper on “Fiscal Policy in the Thirties: A Reappraisal” was one of the first applications of the full-employment budget deficit concept. In contrast to the then-prevailing wisdom, the study suggested that fiscal policy had not been particularly expansionary through much of this period, thereby calling into question the extent to which fiscal policy could have contributed to the U.S. economy’s recovery from the depths of the Great Depression.

Brown was a leader in the post-World War II research effort to understand the economic effects of different tax instruments and to design an equitable and efficient tax system. Policy-makers often sought his advice on questions of tax policy, and he was a frequent consultant to the U.S. Treasury Department. In the early 1960s, he was actively involved in the Kennedy Administration’s consideration of proposals for accelerated depreciation for capital goods, and he was one of the architects of the 1962 investment tax credit.

Brown was an avid tennis player throughout his life. After his retirement from MIT, he played on the Super Seniors Tennis circuit, competing throughout the United States and winning several competitions in various age groups. He remained an active tennis player until he was 88.

A long-time resident of Concord, Brown is survived by three sisters, Phyllys Ohanian of Newton, Mass., Molly Canan of Philomath, Ore., and Constance Morse of Plymouth, Mich.; and one brother, Lewis Brown of New York City. He is also survived by his daughters, Rebecca Brown Corwin of Roslindale, Mass., and Gretchen Brown Rossman of Amherst, Mass.; two granddaughters, three great-grandchildren and two stepchildren.

His first wife, Tomlin E. (Edwards) Coggan, died in 1994; they were divorced. His second wife, Margaret Durham, resides in Evergreen, Colo.; they were divorced.

Source:  MIT News, June 27, 2007.

Image Source:  E. Cary Brown portrait from the MIT Museum Website.